Climates of suspicion: 'chemtrail' conspiracy narratives & the int'l politics of geoengineering

[Hama Neggs]

Remember though there's a spectrum of believers. We are never going to convince those who are in too deep, like Russ Tanner. But there are those more in the middle that will listen to reason.

I'm not talking about some radical adjustment in debunking methodology here. I think the basic idea of polite focussed debunking of specific claims of evidence has been very productive - and continues to be so, with literally thousands of people visiting Metabunk every day, and many of them reading these focussed debunks. I don't want to change that.

What I'm think here is if there are some adjustments, or more specifically additions, to the approach that will make it more effective - allow it to reach more people.

Specifically: is there something we can to to counter the feeling people get that they are being casually dismissed as irrational or stupid? Can we get them to see that "we are not so different, you and I"? And can you do it without them thinking you are playing some kind of mind game?

That's a tough question. Part of the problem stems from trying to argue things from their skewed perspective. You have the: "We are not talking about CONtrails, we are talking about CHEMtrails" response. You have to get them to back up and give up concepts they think are already PROVEN FACTS, because they have seen them repeated as such so many times. You have to bring them to a full stop and realize that virtually everything they accept as factual info is questionable. You can't get them to discuss the whole thing from reasonable middle scientific ground because they don't understand just how UNreasonable their own starting position is.

It's very difficult to suggest that their entire premise is faulty without making them feel like idiots. The truth is, their entire premise is SO faulty, that it IS ridiculous and idiotic. We can argue minutia with them, but the bottom line is, most everything they believe is just flat WRONG.

PS: The entire problem is exacerbated due to people like Tanner continuing to pump out ridiculous notions which are WAAY off-center, scientifically. Seems like you/we have no choice but to find a way to directly confront people like Tanner, not to convince him, but to be able to show how his claims(which form much of the basis for general chemtrail belief) are blatantly false.

 

[Mick West]

It's very difficult to suggest that their entire premise is faulty without making them feel like idiots. The truth is, their entire premise is SO faulty, that it IS ridiculous and idiotic. We can argue minutia with them, but the bottom line is, most everything they believe is just flat WRONG.

See, there's the problem - you just told everyone who has some suspicion about chemtrails that you think that "most everything they believe is just flat WRONG". That's an extremely broad and dismissive statement, and it's going to alienate people.

When you say "their entire premise is faulty", what exactly are you talking about? To them it sounds like you are saying: "your fears about toxic chemicals from geoengineering are stupid" or "your distrust of government is idiotic" or "why would you want blue skies, idiot!".

If someone is concerned that geoengineering will lead to continued ocean acidification, then that is a valid concern. The fact that geoengineering is not happening changes the nature of that concern, but you don't want people to think you are dismissing their entire world view - we need to communicate that we are focussing on individual claims of evidence, and that in some ways we actually agree with their concerns.

 

[Hama Neggs]

See, there's the problem - you just told everyone who has some suspicion about chemtrails that you think that "most everything they believe is just flat WRONG". That's an extremely broad and dismissive statement, and it's going to alienate people.

Absolutely right. But that's the issue I was talking about with the 'off-center' discussion. You can discuss minutia about the appearance of various clouds with them, but it avoids the bottom line, which, for example, is that contrails DO persist and jet engines DO produce contrails, which are normal. If they understood that, most of their their argument would instantly evaporate.

When you say "their entire premise is faulty", what exactly are you talking about? To them it sounds like you are saying: "your fears about toxic chemicals from geoengineering are stupid" or "your distrust of government is idiotic" or "why would you want blue skies, idiot!".

Not their fears, but their assumed facts. They think their fears are based on factual data when they are not.

but you don't want people to think you are dismissing their entire world view

Yes, but you HAVE to dismiss their world view because it IS generally faulty due to their belief in false basic notions such as that geoengineering IS taking place. It's a serious dilemma. It's that you just about HAVE to drop a bomb on their entire world view to bring the discussion back to center. Otherwise, you are tacitly admitting that their beliefs have merit. It's just an unfortunate fact that what they believe is utter nonsense.

 

[Jason]

Specifically: is there something we can to to counter the feeling people get that they are being casually dismissed as irrational or stupid? Can we get them to see that "we are not so different, you and I"? And can you do it without them thinking you are playing some kind of mind game?

First off I think it's important to identify what type of believer they are at the onset of the conversation or claim. Politiely noting to the individual that there will be a mutual open mindedness to the conversation and that both sides will examine the facts without dismissing the entirety of the claim. Both sides have to be willing to accept if their beliefs are wrong or right. If they have no intention of being open minded then its pretty much waste of time to help them, but in doing so the thread will undoubtedly help thousands who sit on the sidelines. Thats what her paper fails to discuss and most people who delve into this topic. More often than not people getting help from these forums don't even make a single comment. They come on here and research it themselves based on the opinions and I've also seen plenty of people come on here after asking a question that concerned them thanking the site for all their help.

Everyone is different and for that fact you can't safeguard against people feeling the way they do (stupid or dismissed). What works for one individual might not work for another. Some times the conversation needs to be "dumbed down" as well depending on the level of intelligence you are dealing with. Friendly conversation with a willingness to hear them out and let them explain themself is key. Having them walk you step by step through their thinking on the subject could help them through it, or get them further into it as well. How do you tell a Jewish person that Jesus is the son of God, can you prove it? I think looking at how educated theologians and priest or rabbi's discuss beliefs could prove beneficial. A willingness to accept someone based on their beliefs even if they differ from yours (and even if you have all the science on your side to back up your beliefs).

 

[WeedWhacker]

I think looking at how educated theologians and priest or rabbi's discuss beliefs could prove beneficial. A willingness to accept someone based on their beliefs even if they differ from yours (and even if you have all the science on your side to back up your beliefs).

Sorry Jason, but this is not a pertinent analogy. What I mean is, a religious belief is by its very nature, NOT based on any factual evidence, of any kind.

On the other hand, the science of contrails is solid, and undeniable. Bringing the science to people, explaining it, this can be done and backed up with evidence.

 

[Jason]

Sorry Jason, but this is not a pertinent analogy. What I mean is, a religious belief is by its very nature, NOT based on any factual evidence, of any kind.

On the other hand, the science of contrails is solid, and undeniable. Bringing the science to people, explaining it, this can be done and backed up with evidence.

Yes the science of contrails is, but the science of chemtrails isn't. Maybe I didn't put my thoughts down sufficiently. Thats the comparison I was trying to make...

 

[Mick West]

Not their fears, but their assumed facts. They think their fears are based on factual data when they are not.

I think you are missing the point. A fear about ocean acidification from geoengineering is a valid fear - something shared by actual geoengineering researchers, like Keith and Caldeira. I want to avoid seeming to dismiss concerns simply because they are raised in an invalid context.

This need not be a big thing - just something like "yes, ocean acidification is a valid concern, and it's something that geoengineering researchers are studying - but the point remains that there is no evidence that solar geoengineering is happening now - we are talking about researching future options"

Same thing with ozone depletion, weather pattern changes, particulate pollution, etc.

 

[deirdre]

we need to communicate that we are focussing on individual claims of evidence

cant you just add that to the big header on t he top of the page next to Metabunk.org "we ONLY focus on Individual claims of evidence NOT broader Theory"

 

[WeedWhacker]

Yes the science of contrails is, but the science of chemtrails isn't.

Yeah, this is my "take-away" from this thread.

Problem seems (to me, anyways) is the 'meme' of "chem"trail belief does almost take on the aspects of religious "belief"....meaning, absolute 'belief' regardless (or sometimes in lieu of) any actual evidence.

The Human psyche seems well-suited to such (some might term them "irrational") belief motifs. Our brains are interesting, and there are also cultural and societal pressures that can influence each individual's perception and opinion.

 

[Hama Neggs]

I think you are missing the point. A fear about ocean acidification from geoengineering is a valid fear - something shared by actual geoengineering researchers, like Keith and Caldeira. I want to avoid seeming to dismiss concerns simply because they are raised in an invalid context.

This need not be a big thing - just something like "yes, ocean acidification is a valid concern, and it's something that geoengineering researchers are studying - but the point remains that there is no evidence that solar geoengineering is happening now - we are talking about researching future options"

Same thing with ozone depletion, weather pattern changes, particulate pollution, etc.

Of course, but as you have noted people's attention could be focused on REAL problems, not potential or imaginary ones. Most of what they fear is based on the idea that geoengineering is ongoing, which is false. If you feel the need to say: "There, there..." and hold their hand a bit, I have no problem with that. It's just that at some point you have to convince them that it just isn't happening NOW and they believe it is. That brings the conversation back to usefulness. It's just that it WILL be shocking to many of them and they don't want to be told they are THAT wrong.

 

[deirdre]

If someone is concerned that geoengineering will lead to continued ocean acidification, then that is a valid concern.

just to throw out an observation, when I read some of those geoengineering links from your OP topic (similar discussions in the field) it sounded to me almost as if this WAS happening or would be happening VERY soon. so they certainly aren't communicating well. when speaking about autism myths and parent concerns, while yea you nod when they talk of their fears, you never ever validate it by making it seem legitimate. People believe me because I am absolute. I don't discuss broader fears, I stay focused and absolute. It works pretty much right from the get go. you get pushback for a few weeks with the real die hards...but that's just residual that dissipates.

I see you doing all the things you are talking about already. I think youre fine. If you agree too much it will confuse people. I cant explain it well. I just know the formula that works.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Here's another point I try to use, to "hit home" to people RE: the alleged "Geo-Engineering" that they think is currently on-going:

Such an endeavor is going to require a great amount of International cooperation, and would require such a scope as to be very, very big news, if implemented.

Yet? No news, and of course, getting multiple and disparate nations to cooperate is a bit like herding cats....

 

[deirdre]

Here's another point I try to use, to "hit home" to people RE: the alleged "Geo-Engineering" that they think is currently on-going:

Such an endeavor is going to require a great amount of International cooperation, and would require such a scope as to be very, very big news, if implemented.

you definitely need different techniques for different people, which is tough to judge online and even tougher in forum type mediums as there is always interference.

 

[Hama Neggs]

The thing they have to be told, at some point, is that the center of the chemtrail movement is being driven by congenital liars like Dane Wigington and Russ Tanner. This is soo foreign and opposite to the general feeling that most believers, no matter how shallow, bring to the table, which is that the "PTB" or government is lying to us all. That's why we get the "I can see both sides of the argument" response. They just don't GET that almost everything coming out of the mouths of those two(and others) who promote the chemtrail meme is false. Not just marginally false or arguable, but blatantly, flat-out, bald-faced, full-stop BS!

 

[WeedWhacker]

The thing which have to be told is that the center of the chemtrail movement is being driven by congenital liars.....

Yes, this is also what I attempt to convey....but, as Deidre pointed out, doing so on-line is fraught with difficulty.

I have a theory that, on one hand, we have active deception to promote the hoax of "chem"trails, which is profit-based adhoc snake oil salesmanship.

That basic scam is then picked up by innocently gullible individuals, who act as unwitting patsies. Sorry if some of these terms are heavily loaded emotionally, but it is what it is.

 

[Hama Neggs]

I stay focused and absolute.

That's kind-of my point- that you can't pretend that their beliefs have merit, and discuss it as if they do, or those beliefs get perpetuated as if they are valid. Certainly their fears are real, but they are baseless and they just don't want to hear that. It comes to the unfortunate point of having to imply that they are idiots for believing the tripe they believe. Even without SAYING that directly, the implication is there, no matter what.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Yes, this is also what I attempt to convey....but, as Deidre pointed out, doing so on-line is fraught with difficulty.

I have a theory that, on one hand, we have active deception to promote the hoax of "chem"trails, which is profit-based adhoc snake oil salesmanship.

That basic scam is then picked up by innocently gullible individuals, who act as unwitting patsies. Sorry if some of these terms are heavily loaded emotionally, but it is what it is.

Yep. But is it productive to NOT point that out? At this point I wonder. You can be seen as "attacking" people, ad hom, but if you don't state the truth, that they are simply liars, you tend to lead credibility to their claims as if they are arguable. As I said, it IS a dilemma!

 

[WeedWhacker]

....but if you don't state the truth, that they are simply liars....

AND here is where we need some wisdom from Mick West --- because accusing someone of being a "liar" (even when you know, deep in your heart it is true), absent any evidence to support it? Well that's, as you say...a dilemma!

 

[Hama Neggs]

AND here is where we need some wisdom from Mick West --- because accusing someone of being a "liar" (even when you know, deep in your heart it is true), absent any evidence to support it? Well that's, as you say...a dilemma!

Ohh... ALWAYS include evidence to support it! I didn't mean to just SAY they are liars. AND I would usually use a less inflamatory term, like: "falsehood".

 

[deirdre]

Thinking about bunk vs conspiracy theories. conspiracy theories (Apollo, 911) can only dissipate SLOWLY over time due to a build up and very much repeated debunking of individual claims of evidence with in the conspiracy itself. and even then you will always have believers.

Maybe the header should read something like that. "Metabunk: Debunking individual claims of evidence. We do not debunk conspiracy theories." simple.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Thinking about bunk vs conspiracy theories. conspiracy theories (Apollo, 911) can only dissipate SLOWLY over time due to a build up and very much repeated debunking of individual claims of evidence with in the conspiracy itself. and even then you will always have believers.

Maybe the header should read something like that. "Metabunk: Debunking individual claims of evidence. We do not debunk conspiracy theories." simple.

I have found that people don't even always understand the definition of "conspiracy theory". They will say: "It's not a conspiracy", when they really mean: "It's not JUST a conspiracy theory". People's language skills is appalling, generally. It think that is a big problem with many discussions- people just don't know how to express themselves accurately and don't know what words mean.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Thinking about bunk vs conspiracy theories. conspiracy theories (Apollo, 911) can only dissipate SLOWLY over time due to a build up and very much repeated debunking of individual claims of evidence with in the conspiracy itself. and even then you will always have believers.

Maybe the header should read something like that. "Metabunk: Debunking individual claims of evidence. We do not debunk conspiracy theories." simple.

As if any clarification like that will mean anything on a site that is "known" to be government lies...

 

[WeedWhacker]

Thinking about bunk vs conspiracy theories. conspiracy theories (Apollo....{snip})

Well, not to veer OT, but really the Apollo 'CTs' are very, very easy to counter....there is so much evidence.

However, I can on one level, see some comparisons to modern "chem"trail CTs.

(EDIT: To add to the above thoughts -- because, much like the "chem"trail CTs of late, the Apollo CTs originally relied on MUCH deception, on the part of those who promoted the "conspiracy theory". "Falsehoods", to cite 'Hama Neggs' term).

 

[deirdre]

I have found that people don't even always understand the definition of "conspiracy theory". They will say: "It's not a conspiracy", when they really mean: "It's not JUST a conspiracy theory". People's language skills is appalling, generally. It think that is a big problem with many discussions- people just don't know how to express themselves accurately and don't know what words mean.

yea but in the context of this post I think its conspiracy theorists who are sensitive. and theyre sensitive because they think they are conspiracy theorists. I think Broader Theory is a harder concept for people to grasp.

 

[deirdre]

Well, not to veer OT, but really the Apollo 'CTs' are very, very easy to counter....there is so much evidence.

However, I can on one level, see some comparisons to modern "chem"trail CTs.

theres SO much evidence that they are contrails too.

 

[WeedWhacker]

theres SO much evidence that they are contrails too.

Yes, I (as a pilot and aviation professional know that), and thankfully you, as a very intelligent layperson understands the science too....even without having a lifetime of aviation experience and knowledge.

SO....the question that looms is: How to convey to those who seem to be wrapped-up in the myth? How to help them see the actual science, and disabuse them of some pre-conceived misconceptions? (Guess that is the point of this thread...typical of me to state the obvious).

 

[Hama Neggs]

How about this: A VERY SPECIFIC debate challenge made to Russ Tanner on his claim that high-bypass turbojet engines don't produce contrails. Just keep pounding on that idea as long as it takes until it becomes completely obvious that he is afraid to debate it! I'd just like to see the debate taken right to the source and pushed in their faces in kind of a "Put up or shut up" fashion. Just keep posting the debate challenge on his FB page and here for all to see. Hmm?

 

[Mick West]

SO....the question that looms is: How to convey to those who seem to be wrapped-up in the myth? How to help them see the actual science, and disabuse them of some pre-conceived misconceptions? (Guess that is the point of this thread...typical of me to state the obvious)

That's the broader point, but the specific point here is if communication can be made more effective by establishing more common ground, and by not giving the impression that you are attacking their entire world view.

 

[Jason]

Yes, I (as a pilot and aviation professional know that), and thankfully you, as a very intelligent layperson understands the science too....even without having a lifetime of aviation experience and knowledge.

SO....the question that looms is: How to convey to those who seem to be wrapped-up in the myth? How to help them see the actual science, and disabuse them of some pre-conceived misconceptions? (Guess that is the point of this thread...typical of me to state the obvious).

Well said TJ, and I think that's what Mick is trying to get at with this topic...

 

[Jason]

That's the broader point, but the specific point here is if communication can be made more effective by establishing more common ground, and by not giving the impression that you are attacking their entire world view.

How do you establish common ground Mick? If someone makes a claim, do you wait for them to bring up other topics that might be considered off topic, but allow it so commonality can be achieved...

 

[WeedWhacker]

....if communication can be made more effective by establishing more common ground....

This is the best way to communicate, face-to-face of course. Much more difficult in the online realm, however.

But, i agree whole-heartedly with this sentiment.

 

[Mick West]

How about this: A VERY SPECIFIC debate challenge made to Russ Tanner on his claim that high-bypass turbojet engines don't produce contrails. Just keep pounding on that idea as long as it takes until it becomes completely obvious that he is afraid to debate it! I'd just like to see the debate taken right to the source and pushed in their faces in kind of a "Put up or shut up" fashion. Just keep posting the debate challenge on his FB page for all to see. Hmm?

Sorry Hama, but I feel like your whole approach here is overly aggressive and confrontational.

 

[Jason]

How about this: A VERY SPECIFIC debate challenge made to Russ Tanner on his claim that high-bypass turbojet engines don't produce contrails. Just keep pounding on that idea as long as it takes until it becomes completely obvious that he is afraid to debate it! I'd just like to see the debate taken right to the source and pushed in their faces in kind of a "Put up or shut up" fashion. Just keep posting the debate challenge on his FB page and here for all to see. Hmm?

Does that work? Or does it turn people off from even listening. Information like that is obviously available on the net, yet people seem to not notice it and become believers regardless..

 

[Hama Neggs]

Sorry Hama, but I feel like your whole approach here is overly aggressive and confrontational.

I will certainly defer to your feelings on the matter.

 

[Mick West]

How do you establish common ground Mick? If someone makes a claim, do you wait for them to bring up other topics that might be considered off topic, but allow it so commonality can be achieved...

You can explain from the outset that debunking this one fact will not debunk the entire theory. That it's still possible that there's something happening that leaves no evidence.

People will often ask "why do you trust the government", and I have a ready "I don't" answer:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...government-and-think-everything-is-fine.2632/

But perhaps that could be got across more immediately.

 

[WeedWhacker]

How about this: A VERY SPECIFIC debate challenge made to Russ Tanner on his claim that high-bypass turbojet engines don't produce contrails.

IF you started there (and removed some potentially emotionally triggering language that I didn't "quote" from your original post), then perhaps that would be a starting point.

I mean, there is AMPLE evidence to prove the assertion that modern "high-bypass turbojet {sic}....(I think "Turbo-Fan" is the correct term).....engines do not produce contrails" is factually in error.

 

[Mick West]

@Hama Neggs, what approach has produced the best results for you?

 

[Jason]

People will often ask "why do you trust the government", and I have a ready "I don't" answer:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...government-and-think-everything-is-fine.2632/

That's a great thread, but I think common ground means more than just agreeing. You state quite emphatically that you don't trust the government because of corruption, revolving doors, war on drugs, and lobbyist, but I think it would serve you better with specifics. What specifically made you distrust the government, or why corruption is an issue in politics. This way they can relate to you better, perhaps. Just saying you don't trust the government when some accuses you of being a shill or CIA operative might not be enough. Not saying this thread is the place for that, I'm just trying to make a point. I think if they can see inside your consciousness and how you came to those conclusions it could prove useful, so long as they don't flip the script on you. It's a fine line you have to dance because agreeing could become problematic as well.

 

[Hama Neggs]

You can explain from the outset that debunking this one fact will not debunk the entire theory. That it's still possible that there's something happening that leaves no evidence.

People will often ask "why do you trust the government", and I have a ready "I don't" answer:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...government-and-think-everything-is-fine.2632/

But perhaps that could be got across more immediately.

I know. That's just another example of their broad world view being faulty. They think all opposing views are from the "official story".

 

[Hama Neggs]

IF you started there (and removed some potentially emotionally triggering language that I didn't "quote" from your original post), then perhaps that would be a starting point.

I mean, there is AMPLE evidence to prove the assertion that modern "high-bypass turbojet {sic}....(I think "Turbo-Fan" is the correct term).....engines do not produce contrails" is factually in error.

Yes. I think that one claim is quickly becoming the central, driving force in the chemtrail movement.